Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD versus CIVIL JUDGE, 1ST CLASS

The petitioner for the constitutional application of Arts 199 and 203 sought the direction of the Civil Judge for a speedy hearing of the suit record, which showed that the trial court was not permitted by the parties' counsel for the trial. That was, after setting matters up, the case was filed for the applicant because of his evidence and then the applicant's chief of witness's testimony was postponed for not cooperating with the lawyer for the defendant's examination. Was being done, but did not intend for the witness's preparation and cross-examination by the respondent's lawyer. Delays on payment of heavy costs were then adjourned for one reason or another, and the resumption of trial court proceedings revealed a deteriorating state of affairs and for the respondent's / defendant's attitude. Unconstitutional, which did not allow for one reason or another, the decision to prosecute the trial case should have been granted neither the court nor the court if the lawyer was engaged in contesting the election. Under Article 203 of the Constitution, as the expected candidate of the Punjab Bar Council Election High Court, only the lawyer should have been allowed to postpone his plea, while the Additional Registrar of the High Court directed that the matter be resolved. Place it in front of the examining judge. And the administration's direction to the trial court to issue necessary directions, however, was directed to expedite the hearing of the case. \ R \ n lawer from fb area from Sehwan lawyer